I have located a couple of Olympus BH2/BHS and Nikon Optiphot 2 scopes but before I buy I would really appreciate anyones thoughts on whether I might be better served with an inverted microscope ? There seems to be a lot of these on the used market. For examination and video recording (important to me) of pond and water organisms, how would an inverted scope compare ? It seems I would be looking through the bottom of dish rather than a slide ? Would there be more issues with creatures traveling in and out of focus ? They also seem to be limited to 40x objectives, but 40x has seemed sufficient so far for me. I know the inverted scopes are larger, but I have a dedicated table. How about from the standpoint of returning creatures unharmed ?

mintakax wrote:I ended up getting a BH2 BHS that I think I'll be happy with. Looking forward to getting started.

Congratulations !!

As mentioned in my recent personal message: You might consider the posibility of adapting the lamphouse to take fibre optic ... This should provide harmless 'cold' lighting [physical temperature] whether you use LED or Tungsten as your source.

This example is for a Zeiss, but the principle should be easily adaptable to the Olympus

Hobbyst46 wrote:BUT filter out much of the short wavelength light. That is, cutoff much of the light below 450nm.

I found an interesting diagram that shows the impact of b/w photo filters: https://www.blende7.at/datenblaetter/b+ ... ndbuch.pdf , page 11.
The light yellow filter would reduce the blue peak and cut of all light that comes close to being UV. I don't know whether this would give an beautiful light quality though.

Hobbyst46 wrote:BUT filter out much of the short wavelength light. That is, cutoff much of the light below 450nm.

I found an interesting diagram that shows the impact of b/w photo filters: https://www.blende7.at/datenblaetter/b+ ... ndbuch.pdf , page 11.
The light yellow filter would reduce the blue peak and cut of all light that comes close to being UV. I don't know whether this would give an beautiful light quality though.

Bob

Hi Bob,
Back in 02/2018, in the thread viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5686&hilit=KR12
MichaelG and I discussed LED light filtration, specifically the output spectrum (about 7-8 posts from the bottom of page 1 of the thread).
A very comprehensive compilation of B+W filter transmission spectra exists under the title: "FILTER HANDOOK B+W FILTERS".
I downloaded it in the past, but cannot find it any more. Think that it is a Schott or Schneider-Kreutznach publication.
ABout the visual appearance of the image - for my LED of 6500K, I tried cutoff filters from 410 to 450nm, camera yellow filters, camera orange filters, 81A, A2, and I think the optimum is KR12, or somewhere between 81A and KR12. Just a personal preference, though. Still not as nice as halogen+blue filter...

Hi Doron,
my link leads to this filter handbook in german language, looks like an older edition, perhaps 1990 or so.
The last LEDs I used were either warm-white 2700K (nice with a blue filter) or neutral white 4000K. These have much less of a blue peak to begin with, but from the light colour there is also less room to reduce the peak further.
I once had a b/w enlarger with a variable contrast head. The 250W halogen bulb illuminated a white box through two filter wheels to provide a mixture between orange an magenta. This light was then used to project the image on the base plate and to make best use of variable contrast paper. But it is probably not easy to make such a design compact, cheap and efficient enough to make it interesting for microscope upgrades and to close the gap around 500nm in the typical LED spectrum. More feasible would be the approach to use a COB LED with LEDs of different wave length combined. Many microscopes use a frosted filter or Lens surface as the new light source and in this case it wouldn't make a difference whether the light comes from ore or more LEDs

It's interesting how people here are concerned about not harming creatures that they observe.

I've never heard scientists mention this. Their mice die because of the things scientists do to them all the time, this is business as usual.

And the newest X-Ray microscopy methods send X-Rays of such a high intensity that specimens literally evaporate. But the X-Ray wave is so thin that it has already passed when the specimen destruction occurs, and they observe X-Rays that have been reflected before any destruction has occurred. Again, they don't care about destruction.

When a scientist comes to new information by his experiment this might make up for the damage that is done in that it helps to understand and protect other creatures. For the amateur scientist this is rarely the case, so it is a good attitude to not increase harm to creatures and environment for this hobby. In my view this is a point that is discussed too little.

Causing harm is in fact a grey scale going from intent to cause as much harm as possible to taking every possible personal pain to not cause harm. Every action falls somewhere in the middle and the issue of the perception of harm from the standpoint of the harmee is in fact knowable only to that entity. There is a broadening tendency in society to consider the position of other animal species from our point of view. There is great concern for animal welfare but little concern at all for plant welfare.. Many people that could not chop the head off of a chicken have no problem chopping the head off of a broccoli, which is in fact in the full flower of motherhood. Most that profess to not harm have no clue that the production of all but the most synthetic of foods causes immense harm to trillions of organisms. Every bean consumed, causes harm to millions, a field of cabbages or radishes or any food plant for that matter, has harmed hundreds, if not thousands of mice moles and shrews at the very least and just showering in the morning , or brushing your teeth, or doing your laundry, harms billions of organisms.

Intent might be the fulcrum upon which the harm/no harm teeter totter rests because humans by their very nature are exceptionally harmfull creatures and I have come across no one that can escape that reality.

Last edited by apochronaut on Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

MicroBob wrote:When a scientist comes to new information by his experiment this might make up for the damage that is done in that it helps to understand and protect other creatures. For the amateur scientist this is rarely the case, so it is a good attitude to not increase harm to creatures and environment for this hobby. In my view this is a point that is discussed too little.

Bob

I've never considered myself an amateur. I am not a professional researcher, but I have several publications including one in biology. I came here because I am researching what microscope to buy to pursue my scientific interests, but then I might again publish a paper later which puts me outside of the realm of being an amateur. So I am debating if this concern is relevant to me. -)

science_dude wrote:It's interesting how people here are concerned about not harming creatures that they observe.
I've never heard scientists mention this.

Well, here you are: “You should sacrifice bugs only if you have a scientific reason for doing so.” –Thomas Eisner, called the father of chemical ecology, et al.

Concern about harm varies. Plainly some types of knowledge are not gained without it, and the lives of protozoans may not count for very much, but I see no reason to discourage anyone erring on the side of caution. And note on the opposite side of things like X-ray microscopy there are things like Raman spectroscopy, where the chemical composition of specimens can be investigated without destroying them, which have found uses precisely because of that.

science_dude wrote:I've never considered myself an amateur. I am not a professional researcher, but I have several publications including one in biology. I came here because I am researching what microscope to buy to pursue my scientific interests, but then I might again publish a paper later which puts me outside of the realm of being an amateur. So I am debating if this concern is relevant to me. -)

You may like to ponder two simple definitions [*]:

An amateur is one who does it for love
A professional is one who does it for money

Clearly they are not mutually exclusive.

It seems that you consider yourself to be 'semi-professional'
... so, hopefully, you will find your own comfortable position on that continuum, and will decide for yourself what level of harm it is appropriate for you to inflict:

So I am debating if this concern is relevant to me. -)

Ask yourself: Does the end justify the means ?

Meanwhile; if you could let the forum know [in a new topic] the nature of the scientific interests that you wish to pursue; then I'm sure that technical advice will be forthcoming, to inform your purchasing decision.

apochronaut wrote:Causing harm is in fact a grey scale going from intent to cause as much harm as possible to taking every possible personal pain to not cause harm. Every action falls somewhere in the middle and the issue of the perception of harm from the standpoint of the harmee is in fact knowable only to that entity. There is a broadening tendency in society to consider the position of other animal species from our point of view. There is great concern for animal welfare but little concern at all for plant welfare.. Many people that could not chop the head off of a chicken have no problem chopping the head off of a broccoli, which is in fact in the full flower of motherhood. Most that profess to not harm have no clue that the production of all but the most synthetic of foods causes immense harm to trillions of organisms. Every bean consumed, causes harm to millions, a field of cabbages or radishes or any food plant for that matter, has harmed hundreds, if not thousands of mice moles and shrews at the very least and just showering in the morning , or brushing your teeth, or doing your laundry, harms billions of organisms.

Intent might be the fulcrum upon which the harm/no harm teeter totter rests because humans by their very nature are exceptionally harmfull creatures and I have come across no one that can escape that reslity.

Very well said, very true!
In fact, current global ecological trends to "save the globe" are doomed to fail (IMHO!) exactly because they ignore these facts.

I truly appreciate everyones opinions and reflections on this topic. I fully realize that it is impossible to live without harming other sentient beings (not talking about vegetables ). One cant even take a breath or a step without harming creatures. I know since I have taken up this hobby that I have harmed many. I do feel a connection with the fellow creatures that I have been observing and thanks to some suggestions from this post I have developed some habits that I feel are at least minimizing that harm. It is my intent to always be aware and appreciative of beings (sentient and non) on all scales.
I certainly do not judge anyone else that pursues this hobby (or profession) as I would hope that others would not judge me. I wish peace, health and happiness to you all.

mintakax, since you're relatively new here I'm unclear on whether you are able to swap PMs or not, so would you please drop me PM, or email? I have a Buddhism-related question I'd like to ask, that's off-topic for this forum.